The NY 103 bridge over the Mohawk at Barge Canal Lock 9 has been closed since the T.S. Irene flooding. But today's round of flooding has made matters much worse. The river carved a new channel to the north of the lock, undermining and collapsing the road between the bridge and NY 5 in Glenville.
The Daily Gazette has a picture:
http://www.dailygazette.com/photos/2011/sep/08/28396/
For a time today, all Thruway exits in Montgomery County were closed as non-emergency travel was banned county-wide. And then this afternoon, all 5 Mohawk River crossings in Schenectady were closed (NY 103, NY 890, NY 5, Freeman's Bridge, and NY 146). All but NY 103 since have reopened. That's obviously going to take some more time.
I think a situation like this is a great justification for posting county border signs on the thruway. Someone should write the Thruway authority on this. How can a driver plan for this sort of situation if they aren't aware which county they are driving in in the first place?
While I'm all in favor of county border signs on the Thruway, at least in this case, the closures were publicized as Exits 27, 28, and 29 ramps being closed rather than by county. I am not aware of any travel restrictions on through traffic on the Thruway in Montgomery County with today's floods.
I noticed on my way north last night that the Thruway VMS were mentioning both the Exit 28 closure (this Mention as early as Kingston), and as I got closer to Albany, "Heavy Delays West of Exit 27".
The photo reminds of the time when the Thruway bridge collapsed over the Schohaire Creek back on April 5, 1987, only on a smaller scale and, apparently, without loss of life on NY 103.
Some amazing aerial views of the NY 103 washout and nearby tornado damage:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerial-photos-new-york-ny/sets/72157627632184918/with/6130359253/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/aerial-photos-new-york-ny/sets/72157627632184918/with/6130359253/)
Quote from: papaT10932 on September 08, 2011, 10:00:47 PM
I think a situation like this is a great justification for posting county border signs on the thruway. Someone should write the Thruway authority on this. How can a driver plan for this sort of situation if they aren't aware which county they are driving in in the first place?
I actually have emailed the Thruway Authority over this matter a couple times in the past, and they have stated that "posting signs at every county would be distracting to motorists". I can't make this up...
Ohio Turnpike drivers somehow manage those "distractions".
Quote from: InterstateNG on September 12, 2011, 01:32:41 AM
Ohio Turnpike drivers somehow manage those "distractions".
As do Indiana Toll Road and Illinois Tollway drivers.
As well as drivers on every other road in NY... those roads even have TOWN boundaries marked!
Quote from: Snappyjack on September 12, 2011, 12:12:48 AM
Quote from: papaT10932 on September 08, 2011, 10:00:47 PM
I think a situation like this is a great justification for posting county border signs on the thruway. Someone should write the Thruway authority on this. How can a driver plan for this sort of situation if they aren't aware which county they are driving in in the first place?
I actually have emailed the Thruway Authority over this matter a couple times in the past, and they have stated that "posting signs at every county would be distracting to motorists". I can't make this up...
The NJ Turnpike Authority won't put up town signs, but they at least do the county signs. (Or are willing to)
I took some pictures along NY 5 and NY 5S near the continuing construction to repair NY 103 between Glenville and Rotterdam Junction.
http://www.teresco.org/pics/floodroads-20111114-21/ (http://www.teresco.org/pics/floodroads-20111114-21/)
The pictures aren't great by any means, just ones I've taken from the moving car, often in poor lighting. But there they are if anyone wants to take a look.
Driving by today, it appears that the approach to the bridge from NY 5, which was washed completely away, is almost built back up to the necessary height to start some actual road construction. News reports have indicated an expected reopening early in 2012.
Paving was underway on NY 103 from NY 5 to the bridge this morning when I drove by. Maybe they'll beat the January opening target.
Quote from: Jim on December 02, 2011, 08:42:41 PM
I took some pictures along NY 5 and NY 5S near the continuing construction to repair NY 103 between Glenville and Rotterdam Junction.
http://www.teresco.org/pics/floodroads-20111114-21/ (http://www.teresco.org/pics/floodroads-20111114-21/)
The pictures aren't great by any means, just ones I've taken from the moving car, often in poor lighting. But there they are if anyone wants to take a look.
Driving by today, it appears that the approach to the bridge from NY 5, which was washed completely away, is almost built back up to the necessary height to start some actual road construction. News reports have indicated an expected reopening early in 2012.
I've tried to get some photos of the NY 103 construction, but it seems like the moving car approach has been the most feasible way of getting photos from the actual bridge. The last time I was poking around Rotterdam Junction (a few weekends ago), there were construction workers on site (on a Sunday afternoon) on the south side of the Mohawk River, so trying to get some good photos wasn't working out too well.
Since I'm in Schenectady, I could realistically swing by early enough in the day and see if I can get some better photos.
Driving by yesterday on the north side, it looked like all that's needed are some guard rails and some paint. But I don't know if all the layers of pavement are down or not.
Over the last month or 6 weeks, NY 5 has gone from both directions using the WB lanes for a good mile around the junction, to one lane open in each direction on its own side of the roadway, to both lanes open WB and just a brief right lane closure near the 103 junction EB.
I'm away so I can't check it out myself, but the Daily Gazette reports this morning that the Route 103 bridge reopened yesterday, 12/22.
The report states that the repair cost was about $3 million.
Quote from: Jim on December 23, 2011, 08:02:17 AM
I'm away so I can't check it out myself, but the Daily Gazette reports this morning that the Route 103 bridge reopened yesterday, 12/22.
The report states that the repair cost was about $3 million.
The article about NY 103 re-opening was also in the Albany Times Union, but I haven't been successful in locating the online link yet. From what I know, the (Schenectady) Daily Gazette requires readers to log in first before checking out article.
And here we go...
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Storm-damaged-Route-103-reopens-2420605.php (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Storm-damaged-Route-103-reopens-2420605.php)